The Obama Deception

[pamarella]

And isn't it completely sad that there are some that just get their news from FAUX news? They are too afraid to look anywhere else to validate their narrow-minded views on the US and the world....so this Gop TV is the place you find them all the time? It's time to open your eyes up. Faux News is NOT fair and balanced. Not by a long shot!

Yeah!! based on the Faux News sponsored TEA BAG PARTY, you'd thought that there were a billion people that showed up. It was supposed to be as big as the million man march. NOT BY A LONG SHOT..:no::rofl:

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

And isn't it completely sad that there are some that just get their news from FAUX news? They are too afraid to look anywhere else to validate their narrow-minded views on the US and the world....so this Gop TV is the place you find them all the time? It's time to open your eyes up. Faux News is NOT fair and balanced. Not by a long shot!

Totally agree. But why do you keep bringing Fox News into this? They have nothing to do with my view points, where I get my news or this doco.

Fox News dont go around saying that Obama is as bad as Bush. Bush was Fox News' God!

 

[LindaC781]

Totally agree. But why do you keep bringing Fox News into this? They have nothing to do with my view points, where I get my news or this doco.

Fox News dont go around saying that Obama is as bad as Bush. Bush was Fox News' God!

Ya got me there...have a good one DI. Gotta go to clinical this morning....my second to last day there!! WOOO HOOO!!

Here's a vid you need to watch. It's called Baracknophobia...

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/95185/Video_Jon_Stewart_on_conservative_Baracknophobia

 

[Bob George]

Obama has lied? Not surprised.

News flash: Every politician, every last one of them, EVER, has lied. They tell lies, they tell half-truths, they say what needs to be said to make people feel better, to get a vote, and sometimes both.

The problem comes with what they lie about and the extent of the deception. Obama hasn't told any dastardly lies. If he had, you wouldn't need to buy a book to find out what they are. You'd be able to tune into Fox News on a nightly basis and watch Hannity and O'Reilly wear it on a hat.

Maybe this economic crisis isn't being handled 100% to the best that it could be, but I don't believe any crucial mistakes have been made yet either. I also question the right's ability to handle this situation, either with a hands-on or hands-off approach, when roughly a year ago they were insisting that the economy was strong and new jobs were being created at break-neck speeds.

The point is that he hyped himself up as an agent of change and people truly believed they were getting something different with Obama. But he's not all that different from Bush. I think it deserves some attention when so many people who hated Bush are now in love with someone who represents something different but really isn't different at all. You said it, he's a typical politician, he's just like the rest. Well that's not what he hyped himself up to be. That's not what his millions of supporters around the world believe he is. They think he's different, they think he's actually going to change something. That's the deception. It's worth pointing out.

Also, there were many on the right-wing, fiscally coservative and libertarian side that were warning of an economic collapse years ago. Ron Paul, anyone? And don't forget, Barney Frank who headed the financial services committee when the economy tanked was caught on tape saying Freddie and Fannie were fine. He either lied to the public or didn't know what was coming. So it's a little unfair to say the right was oblivious to the coming economic crisis when you could say the same for the left.

 

[Superstition]

The point is that he hyped himself up as an agent of change and people truly believed they were getting something different with Obama. But he's not all that different from Bush.

Yeah, it makes for an interesting book maybe, but I don't believe this, sorry.

Also, I said he probably told some small lies. I never said I don't believe he wants change, or that he won't try to change things in Washington.

 

[pamarella]

The point is that he hyped himself up as an agent of change and people truly believed they were getting something different with Obama. But he's not all that different from Bush. I think it deserves some attention when so many people who hated Bush are now in love with someone who represents something different but really isn't different at all. You said it, he's a typical politician, he's just like the rest. Well that's not what he hyped himself up to be. That's not what his millions of supporters around the world believe he is. They think he's different, they think he's actually going to change something. That's the deception. It's worth pointing out.

Also, there were many on the right-wing, fiscally coservative and libertarian side that were warning of an economic collapse years ago. Ron Paul, anyone? And don't forget, Barney Frank who headed the financial services committee when the economy tanked was caught on tape saying Freddie and Fannie were fine. He either lied to the public or didn't know what was coming. So it's a little unfair to say the right was oblivious to the coming economic crisis when you could say the same for the left.

The point is that you don't have a point but the same old point. You are just nick picking for the sake of nick picking. The only point that you can make is that Obama and Bush are both politicians, that's it. Barack Obama is nothing like George W. Bush. And it deserves some attention on how people such as yourself who is very critical of Obama, have nothing new to offer in this disccussion here on this forum or anywhere else.

And please, Ron Paul is the "RALPH NADER" of the Republican party.

The point is that he hyped himself up as an agent of change and people truly believed they were getting something different with Obama.

The people who supported Obama, knew that he wasn't going to change Washington in a year or two years or in 96 days. If there are people who are that naive to believe that, then Obama can't help that. But the mood in the country has CHANGED and that has a lot to do with Obama. So in a sense he is living up to his hype.

When Obama talked about changing Washington, he wasn't just talking about the Republicans, he was also talking about Democrats.:yes:

 

[Bob George]

The point is that you don't have a point but the same old point. You are just nick picking for the sake of nick picking. The only point that you can make is that Obama and Bush are both politicians, that's it. Barack Obama is nothing like George W. Bush. And it deserves some attention on how people such as yourself who is very critical of Obama, have nothing new to offer in this disccussion here on this forum or anywhere else.

See, you're buying in to the Obama deception. You think he's nothing like Bush. He's escalating the War on Terror, he's bailing out big business just like Bush, he's continuing the PATRIOT act, he hasn't repealed any of Bush's totalitarian declarations that make him dictator in the event of a terrorist attack, he increasing the debt just like Bush, he's not fiscally conservative just like Bush.

And what would you like me to offer to the discussion? You asked for right-wing solutions, I gave them to you. Are you wanting some sort of acknowledgment from me that Obama's not all bad. Done. Go back a few pages you'll see me praising his leadership qualities. I don't know what you're looking for and I don't know what you mean by I'm not offering anything new to the discussion. I suppose going along with the flow and worshipping Obama like the rest of the world is something new. But I'm sorry, I'm not going to get suckered into it. He's continuing the same policies I don't like so why am I supposed to support that?

And please, Ron Paul is the "RALPH NADER" of the Republican party.

What are you talking about? He cost the Republicans votes? How? He didn't run as an independent. Are you saying he lost it for the Republicans by comparing him to Nader who lost it for the Democrats in 2000 by running as an independent and taking away voters who would've otherwise voting Democratic? He didn't run as an independent. I don't get the comparison.

The people who supported Obama, knew that he wasn't going to change Washington in a year or two years or in 96 days. If there are people who are that naive to believe that, then Obama can't help that. But the mood in the country has CHANGED and that has a lot to do with Obama. So in a sense he is living up to his hype.

So he's managed to convince a lot of people that he will change things and he's a different kind of politician, one they can believe in, and that is good enough? Just the hope that he will change? The mood changed, so it's all good now. Look, I know everyone around the world is optimistic about Obama at the moment. But why does that matter? Isn't what he does more important than his public approval? Something like 90% of Americans were optimistic about Bush after 9/11. He had the highest approval rating of any President ever. Look how that turned out. He turned one of the most unifying moments in US history into one of the most divisive wars in world history.

When Obama talked about changing Washington, he wasn't just talking about the Republicans, he was also talking about Democrats.:yes:

In what way is he going to change the Democrats? By making them even more fiscally irresponsible, supporting even bigger government? I know what Obama's idea of change is. Taking everything people hated about the last 8 years and doing it bigger. See because in his opinion, the problem is that government isn't big enough, doesn't do enough, doesn't spend enough. Every President since Kennedy has increased the size of government, and have things got better? It should be obvious but it's not. The only President who could bring real change would be one who really believed in smaller government and non-interventionist policies. Because it's so very clear. Every time the government intervenes, they cause more problems. Whether it be intervening in foreign affairs, or in the economy. The are like cancer and the bigger it get the sicker the host will get until eventually it'll get so big the host can no longer survive. Big statism will be the death of us.

 

[pamarella]

See, you're buying in to the Obama deception. You think he's nothing like Bush. He's escalating the War on Terror, he's bailing out big business just like Bush, he's continuing the PATRIOT act, he hasn't repealed any of Bush's totalitarian declarations that make him dictator in the event of a terrorist attack, he increasing the debt just like Bush, he's not fiscally conservative just like Bush.

And what would you like me to offer to the discussion? You asked for right-wing solutions, I gave them to you. Are you wanting some sort of acknowledgment from me that Obama's not all bad. Done. Go back a few pages you'll see me praising his leadership qualities. I don't know what you're looking for and I don't know what you mean by I'm not offering anything new to the discussion. I suppose going along with the flow and worshipping Obama like the rest of the world is something new. But I'm sorry, I'm not going to get suckered into it. He's continuing the same policies I don't like so why am I supposed to support that?

Why are you comparing Obama's 97 days in office to Bush's 8 years in office??? And do you think that Obama is going to change some of the Bush policies in his first 100 days? Give me a break!!!!!!!(*roll eyes*)

Obama is not escalating the war on terror. Like I said before, he is taking the fight to where the terrorist is, to the Afghan/Pakistan boarder, not in Iraq like Bush had Americans believing. But all Americans agree, Al-Qaeda must be stopped. And Obama doesn't call it "A WAR ON TERROR".
This totalitarian mess you're talking about, I don't know what you mean by that. Obama is not a dictator and you know that. You are going to extreme measures to try to make a point.

And Fiscally conservative, Obama is not. And I'm trying to tell you that Americans believe that the RIGHT WING APPROACH, DID NOT WORK. And there is an increase in his budget, but we won't know the full affects until months, years from now. But for now Americans feel that his plan is what we need. That is why Barack Obama approval rating is at 69%. We trust him to handle this economic mess more than the Right Wing Republicans. And I'm not looking for anything from you. The debate is that you believe Obama Presidency is a DECEPTION. His presidency is no more a deception than if a person with a Right Wing views was in office, that's my argument to you. Because you believe that his presidency is a deception, doesn't make it so.
And Americans will do just like what we've done for the last 232 years, VOTE YOUR ASS OUT OF OFFICE if we feel you did a poor job. Both Democrats and Republicans understand this.

What are you talking about? He cost the Republicans votes? How? He didn't run as an independent. Are you saying he lost it for the Republicans by comparing him to Nader who lost it for the Democrats in 2000 by running as an independent and taking away voters who would've otherwise voting Democratic? He didn't run as an independent. I don't get the comparison.

No!!! the Republicans didn't need Ron Paul for them to loose the election, John McCain did just fine. But Ron Paul just seems to talk and no one in the Republican party seems to listen. He seems to be an odd ball, but you are the run that brought him up. But Americans (The Independents) learned their lesson from 2000. After 8 years of Bush, they made sure that Ralph Nader wouldn't be an issue.

But why does that matter? Isn't what he does more important than his public approval? Something like 90% of Americans were optimistic about Bush after 9/11. He had the highest approval rating of any President ever. Look how that turned out. He turned one of the most unifying moments in US history into one of the most divisive wars in world history.

Obama has only been in office for 97 days and so far is off to a good start. And by most accounts he has pretty much stuck to what he promised during the campaign.
And of course 90% of Americans supported Bush after 9/11, WE WERE ATTACKED.
What hurt Bush was the Iraq war and the lies about WMD'S. He lied on why we needed to go to war.... And yes the economy.

In what way is he going to change the Democrats? By making them even more fiscally irresponsible, supporting even bigger government? I know what Obama's idea of change is. Taking everything people hated about the last 8 years and doing it bigger. See because in his opinion, the problem is that government isn't big enough, doesn't do enough, doesn't spend enough. Every President since Kennedy has increased the size of government, and have things got better? It should be obvious but it's not. The only President who could bring real change would be one who really believed in smaller government and non-interventionist policies. Because it's so very clear. Every time the government intervenes, they cause more problems. Whether it be intervening in foreign affairs, or in the economy. The are like cancer and the bigger it get the sicker the host will get until eventually it'll get so big the host can no longer survive. Big statism will be the death of us.

Well that's your opinion on how you feel about Government. And when the government doesn't intervene, there are problems too. I don't believe in smaller government. In poor countries and some big countries, there tends to be a smaller government where there are a handful of selected people that are rich and corrupted while the majority of the people are poor. And I prefer Dems over the Repubs anytime. But the truth is that the best way to govern no matter what your party is, is to govern from a moderate apporach. Straight down the middle. The problem with the Republicans is that they have allowed the Right- Wing agenda to dictate the issues. But I have a feeling that is going to change in 2012. But first, there got to be some Republicans that need to develops some balls.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

And Obama doesn't call it "A WAR ON TERROR".

lol All Obama did was change his catch phrase. Bush's "War On Terror" is Obama's a "Struggle Against Violent Extremism," or SAVE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/obama-may-abandon-bushs-w_n_164237.html

 

[pamarella]

lol All Obama did was change his catch phrase. Bush's "War On Terror" is Obama's a "Struggle Against Violent Extremism," or SAVE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/obama-may-abandon-bushs-w_n_164237.html

And what wrong with that? You don't think Al-Qaeda or people with extremist views are a threat?:mello:

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

And what wrong with that? You don't think Al-Qaeda or people with extremist views are a threat?:mello:

I didnt say that so please dont put words in my mouth!

Of course they're a threat.

But what you had a problem is with Bush's phrase of 'War On Terror'. Now here's part of the 'Change' that Obama promised being that he simply changed Bush's phrase of 'War On Terror' to 'Struggle Against Violent Extremism'. Whats the difference? None. Obama didnt change any of the previous administrations agenda's in fact he embraced it and has already taken it further by legalising Bush's once illegal tactics.

 

[Bob George]

Why are you comparing Obama's 97 days in office to Bush's 8 years in office??? And do you think that Obama is going to change some of the Bush policies in his first 100 days? Give me a break!!!!!!!(*roll eyes*)

Liberals said to give Obama 100 days before you judge him. That time is just about up. Am I allowed to judge him yet? It doesn't matter that he hasn't done everything he wants to do yet, because he's already said what he wants to do and I'm judging him on that. I'm judging his policies, his plans. Every indication is that he will continue down the same line as Bush with very little variation.

Obama is not escalating the war on terror. Like I said before, he is taking the fight to where the terrorist is, to the Afghan/Pakistan boarder, not in Iraq like Bush had Americans believing. But all Americans agree, Al-Qaeda must be stopped. And Obama doesn't call it "A WAR ON TERROR".

lol, that's the most laughable thing ever. The "Stuggle Against Voilent Extremism". Nearly as bad as the "PATRIOT" act. Don't be fooled by nice sounding names. When a political leader does that they're taking a page right out or Orwell's 1984.

But regarding the War on Terror, or SAVE as it's now called; I've said it before, elimating al-Qaeda or dismantling the Taliban won't stop terrorism. That's just naive to even think that. So it's rather pointless to chase these people all over the Middle East in a "struggle" to end "violent extremism". It's always going to exist. I don't have a problem with the people directly responsible for the attack of 9/11 on US soil to be tracked down and held accountable. But most of them already have been caught, the only person still at large is Osama bin Laden. And tracking him down or anyone else they still think needs to be held accountable doesn't take 20,000 troops from several different countries. Just send in a special task force or something. But that's not what Obama wants to do. Just like Bush he doesn't care about retribution for 9/11, his agenda is geo-politicising the area, turning it into a western-style democracy, so that the US has another ally it can count on in that area. It's going to take a lot of time, cost a lot of money and result in so many casualities. It's just not worth it.

This totalitarian mess you're talking about, I don't know what you mean by that. Obama is not a dictator and you know that. You are going to extreme measures to try to make a point.

What I mean is that Bush made a number of declaration that make the office of the President the total authority in times of terror, totally over-riding the congress and the courts. That's what I mean by Bush's totalitarian declaration that turned the office of President into a dictatorship role, and Obama seems quit happy to leave those measures in place.

And Fiscally conservative, Obama is not. And I'm trying to tell you that Americans believe that the RIGHT WING APPROACH, DID NOT WORK.

I don't care what most people believe. They are wrong. How can the right-wing approach to economics be the problem if economics hasn't been approached from the right-wing for decades, since before WWII? Read what people are saying about the causes of the crisis and you'll see most people blaming legislature that forced banks to make risky loans to lower and middle class people wanting to buy a home in an effort to reduce inequality and what seemed like unfairness in the banking and mortgage industry. That's a completely left-wing liberal idea. Is it not? What the majority thinks doesn't matter. The majority can be wrong and often are. Good ideas that work always come from individuals, not from the collective.

And there is an increase in his budget, but we won't know the full affects until months, years from now. But for now Americans feel that his plan is what we need. That is why Barack Obama approval rating is at 69%. We trust him to handle this economic mess more than the Right Wing Republicans.

Again, why does it matter so much to some people what everyone else thinks? I don't care what the collective think. I have my individual opinions. I have no interest in collective opinions, only individual opinions.

And I'm not looking for anything from you. The debate is that you believe Obama Presidency is a DECEPTION. His presidency is no more a deception than if a person with a Right Wing views was in office, that's my argument to you. Because you believe that his presidency is a deception, doesn't make it so.

Yes, and just because you believe in his message of change doesn't make it so either. What sort of argument is that?

And Americans will do just like what we've done for the last 232 years, VOTE YOUR ASS OUT OF OFFICE if we feel you did a poor job. Both Democrats and Republicans understand this.

You vote someone who you don't like out of office and replace them with someone who's just the same. It always happens and it happens all around the world in so many so called "democracies".

No!!! the Republicans didn't need Ron Paul for them to loose the election, John McCain did just fine. But Ron Paul just seems to talk and no one in the Republican party seems to listen. He seems to be an odd ball, but you are the run that brought him up. But Americans (The Independents) learned their lesson from 2000. After 8 years of Bush, they made sure that Ralph Nader wouldn't be an issue.

Everybody who speaks the truth is called a nut by everyone else. Ron Paul said some nutty things like that maybe government should get out of our lives. Doesn't make him wrong.

And of course 90% of Americans supported Bush after 9/11, WE WERE ATTACKED.
What hurt Bush was the Iraq war and the lies about WMD'S. He lied on why we needed to go to war.... And yes the economy.

What I'm saying it that in a time of "crisis", the majority will very willingly stand behind their leader. But that doesn't mean the President is right or will do the right thing. It's just instinctive behaviour on part of the public. Approval ratings don't mean much. Of course 60% of people are going to approve of Obama is 60% of people have been deceived. Do you really hold the collective opinion of a nation asleep so dear?

Well that's your opinion on how you feel about Government. And when the government doesn't intervene, there are problems too. I don't believe in smaller government. In poor countries and some big countries, there tends to be a smaller government where there are a handful of selected people that are rich and corrupted while the majority of the people are poor. And I prefer Dems over the Repubs anytime. But the truth is that the best way to govern no matter what your party is, is to govern from a moderate apporach. Straight down the middle.

It's not necessarily good governence, but it's good strategy to keep public opinion high if you govern from the middle. But who defines the middle? It's so abitrary. Things like the left-right spectrum are kinda pointless. It's really on created to give the illusion that two sides are different. When really they just both want a different kind of big government. There's really no left and right. You can take the right-wing position on some issues or the left-wing position, depending on what right and left is defined as at the time. But it the end there's those that want freedom and those who want to take it away. Those are really the two sides that matter.

The problem with the Republicans is that they have allowed the Right- Wing agenda to dictate the issues. But I have a feeling that is going to change in 2012. But first, there got to be some Republicans that need to develops some balls.

What is the right-wing agenda? And why is worse than the left-wing agenda? Any political agenda is bad unless it's an agenda to give people more freedom. But no one ever gets into politics because they want to dissolve the powers of politicians. Maybe when they're young and idealist they aspire to change politics. But then politics changes them. Power corrupts.

 

[LindaC781]

You want to know what the Right Wing's credibility problem is? When they say "I'll give Obama 100 days", yet they've been against him and what he has tried to do from the start. Don't come on here and start whining and bitching about what Obama has or has not done, because if you had your way, and you did your job correctly, you'd be still in office. We don't call you the "Party of NO" for no reason...You lost. Get over it.

 

[pamarella]

I didnt say that so please dont put words in my mouth!

Of course they're a threat.

But what you had a problem is with Bush's phrase of 'War On Terror'. Now here's part of the 'Change' that Obama promised being that he simply changed Bush's phrase of 'War On Terror' to 'Struggle Against Violent Extremism'. Whats the difference? None. Obama didnt change any of the previous administrations agenda's in fact he embraced it and has already taken it further by legalising Bush's once illegal tactics.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth so don't accuse me of that. I only asked you a question.....

Let's hear or read your version on how Al-Qaeda should be stopped. And if it isn't VIOLENT EXTREMISM, then what is it????????

Both Bush and Obama knows that Al-Qaeda needs to be stopped, the only difference is that Bush LIED about how he would stop them and Obama is taken the fight directly to where Al-Qaeda is.

 

[pamarella]

I'm judging his policies, his plans. Every indication is that he will continue down the same line as Bush with very little variation.

That is strictly your opinion...!!!!!!!!

I've said it before, elimating al-Qaeda or dismantling the Taliban won't stop terrorism. That's just naive to even think that. So it's rather pointless to chase these people all over the Middle East in a "struggle" to end "violent extremism". It's always going to exist. I don't have a problem with the people directly responsible for the attack of 9/11 on US soil to be tracked down and held accountable. But most of them already have been caught, the only person still at large is Osama bin Laden. And tracking him down or anyone else they still think needs to be held accountable doesn't take 20,000 troops from several different countries. Just send in a special task force or something. But that's not what Obama wants to do. Just like Bush he doesn't care about retribution for 9/11, his agenda is geo-politicising the area, turning it into a western-style democracy, so that the US has another ally it can count on in that area. It's going to take a lot of time, cost a lot of money and result in so many casualities. It's just not worth it.

A SMALL TASK FORCE??? OK Bob George, you are the one that's naive. There is a network of people invovled with Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan and Pakistan is part of the problem as well as other middle eastern governments that openly and secretly who supports Al-Qaeda. It's not just about Bin Laden. The reason why the Obama is sending 20,000 troops is to help support the troops of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And don't forget, an un-stable government in Pakistan means that those extremist can and will have access to the nuclear weapons that are there. So Obama is correct.

Obama isn't trying to bring democracy over there, but some of those Extremist are hell bent on spreading their Extremist agenda throught out the Western world and yes they must be stopped. And if you are plotting to kill Americans on American soil, then, IT'S WORTH IT!!!

That's what I mean by Bush's totalitarian declaration that turned the office of President into a dictatorship role, and Obama seems quit happy to leave those measures in place.

Again, this is your opinion or your truth as you see it. Barack Obama has never said that this is how he see's his role and President.

You vote someone who you don't like out of office and replace them with someone who's just the same. It always happens and it happens all around the world in so many so called "democracies".

So what do you prefer other than a DEMOCRACY?????????

 

[Bob George]

That is strictly your opinion...!!!!!!!!

Yes, of course it is. Who's else would it be?

A SMALL TASK FORCE???

OK Bob George, you are the one that's naive. There is a network of people invovled with Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan and Pakistan is part of the problem as well as other middle eastern governments that openly and secretly who supports Al-Qaeda. It's not just about Bin Laden. The reason why the Obama is sending 20,000 troops is to help support the troops of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And don't forget, an un-stable government in Pakistan means that those extremist can and will have access to the nuclear weapons that are there. So Obama is correct.

An army didn't attack the US on 9/11, a small task force did. You are only giving them credence by going after them with the world's strongest allied forces.

And the US also has nuclear weapons. Does that give China the right to invade the US and take their WMD's?

Obama isn't trying to bring democracy over there, but some of those Extremist are hell bent on spreading their Extremist agenda throught out the Western world and yes they must be stopped. And if you are plotting to kill Americans on American soil, then, IT'S WORTH IT!!!

People are plotting to kill Americans in America. Obama is plotting to attack other countries. Notice he's got troops in Iraq, he's going to send more troops to Afghanistan, soon they'll have set themselves up so they can attack Iran from either side. Think of where they are positioning themselves in the world. So close to Iran, Russia, China, all the nuclear threats.

Again, this is your opinion or your truth as you see it. Barack Obama has never said that this is how he see's his role and President.

Again, if I'm saying something that's not referenced or quoted from another source, of course it's an opinion. "Totalitarian", "dictator" is opinion. But everything else is fact. Search for "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" or "Presidential Directive 51".

So what do you prefer other than a DEMOCRACY?????????

Some sort of a minarchy where the collective doesn't decide for the individual, individuals decide for themselves, but the collective do elect representatives who serve only as protectors of the rights and liberties of the people they're representing. That's not what we have now in countries like the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. What we have in these so called beacons of democracy is more of less dictatorship because individuals are told what to do by the collective and the collective are told what to think by the elite. It's basically the in between of freedom and fascism.

 

[Superstition]

People are plotting to kill Americans in America. Obama is plotting to attack other countries. Notice he's got troops in Iraq, he's going to send more troops to Afghanistan, soon they'll have set themselves up so they can attack Iran from either side. Think of where they are positioning themselves in the world. So close to Iran, Russia, China, all the nuclear threats.

What?

Of course there are troops in Iraq, they've been there since 2003 when most of America didn't even know who Barack Obama was and he wasn't even a state senator yet. Was he supposed to withdraw them overnight? It's going to be a slow, gradual process.

Troops have long been needed in Afghanistan. That's where we should have been originally and Barack made it clear he intended to ramp up our efforts there, especially with recent uprisings and the fact that they could be breading grounds for more terrorist groups if the area is considered an afterthought.

I don't know what liberals gave the "100 days" rule, but I really don't think a shade over three months is much of a chance, he's likely just settled into the role. Your lines that connect him to Bush seem to be reaching to some extent. There were troops in Iraq when Bush was president and there are troops over there now, so Obama is just continuing Bush's policies. I don't get that.

 

[pamarella]

And the US also has nuclear weapons. Does that give China the right to invade the US and take their WMD's?

The United States is a stable country and isn't using their WMD's to threaten other countries, so no China doesn't have the right.

People are plotting to kill Americans in America. Obama is plotting to attack other countries. Notice he's got troops in Iraq, he's going to send more troops to Afghanistan, soon they'll have set themselves up so they can attack Iran from either side. Think of where they are positioning themselves in the world. So close to Iran, Russia, China, all the nuclear threats.

So do you think Iran is a threat? And you don't think China is trying to do the same thing?

 

[Bob George]

What?

Of course there are troops in Iraq, they've been there since 2003 when most of America didn't even know who Barack Obama was and he wasn't even a state senator yet. Was he supposed to withdraw them overnight? It's going to be a slow, gradual process.

Troops have long been needed in Afghanistan. That's where we should have been originally and Barack made it clear he intended to ramp up our efforts there, especially with recent uprisings and the fact that they could be breading grounds for more terrorist groups if the area is considered an afterthought.

I don't know what liberals gave the "100 days" rule, but I really don't think a shade over three months is much of a chance, he's likely just settled into the role. Your lines that connect him to Bush seem to be reaching to some extent. There were troops in Iraq when Bush was president and there are troops over there now, so Obama is just continuing Bush's policies. I don't get that.

So Obama's big difference from Bush on foreign policy is that he's sending more troops into the area, escalating the war on terror, but calling it something different? He's Bush on steroids and this what people want, is it? Obama's so blatantly carrying on with the same rubbish as Bush except now people support it. It's OK because it's Obama. It's only his first 100 days, he hasn't had time to scale back the US empire in the Middle East, but he's had time to plan for an even bigger US empire in the area extending now into Pakistan possibly. He hasn't had time to cut the deficit, but he's had time to increase it. It's OK though, becuase he's Obama, the hope and the change we've been waiting for.

The United States is a stable country and isn't using their WMD's to threaten other countries, so no China doesn't have the right.

So do you think Iran is a threat? And you don't think China is trying to do the same thing?

I think Iran is as big a threat to the surrounding areas as the US is. Iran hasn't set up an occupation in the surrounding countries. But you know if they did the US would be the first to bomb the hell out of them. But it's alright if the US does it because they are a force for good. Didn't the Soviets tell their people that they were a force for good, that communism needed to be spread through-out the Middle East, that the US were evil, capitalist, imperialist forces that can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Same exact thing.

 

[pamarella]

I think Iran is as big a threat to the surrounding areas as the US is. Iran hasn't set up an occupation in the surrounding countries. But you know if they did the US would be the first to bomb the hell out of them. But it's alright if the US does it because they are a force for good. Didn't the Soviets tell their people that they were a force for good, that communism needed to be spread through-out the Middle East, that the US were evil, capitalist, imperialist forces that can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Same exact thing.

OK!!! So if you had to choose, who would you choose. Iran or the United States???

And I guess Russians now know that their government lied to them. Mr Gorbachev tore down that wall...

 

[Bob George]

OK!!! So if you had to choose, who would you choose. Iran or the United States???

And I guess Russians now know that their government lied to them. Mr Gorbachev tore down that wall...

I choose none. I want to be Sweden. But we're not we are US loyalists and I don't have a huge problem with that if the threat against the US is legitimate because the US did send troops to Australia during WWII when the Japanese were threatening to invade and were bombing Darwin. So we do owe our loyality to them. But that doesn't mean following the US into dangerous, senseless wars and helping them expand their empire around the world. I don't want to be a part of that. I wish Australia didn't have to have a part in that. You'd think because of the way we are geo-politically situated in the world, we're an huge island surrounded by sea on all sides, that we'd be able to remain isolated from foreign issues. You'd think we'd be the most sovereign nation in the world. But we're not. We have dedicated our military servives to the US and honestly I don't have a problem being a US ally if the threat it legitmate. For the right cause I'd go myself and fight on the US side.

 

[Superstition]

So Obama's big difference from Bush on foreign policy is that he's sending more troops into the area, escalating the war on terror, but calling it something different? He's Bush on steroids and this what people want, is it? Obama's so blatantly carrying on with the same rubbish as Bush except now people support it. It's OK because it's Obama. It's only his first 100 days, he hasn't had time to scale back the US empire in the Middle East, but he's had time to plan for an even bigger US empire in the area extending now into Pakistan possibly. He hasn't had time to cut the deficit, but he's had time to increase it. It's OK though, becuase he's Obama, the hope and the change we've been waiting for.

Ok, so your two big points seem to be the bailouts and spending, and the war on terror.

He's not going to step down and the U.S. Government isn't going to use a hands-off approach. That was never promised and will likely never happen, so if that's what you were expecting when he mentioned "change", I think you may have been mistaken. He made it clear from the start he was going to work on a plan to scale back the number of troops in Iraq and put more responsibility on their new government, and that he was going to ramp up efforts in Afghanistan. There is no deception there, that's what he said he was going to do, and that is a change from what we were currently doing.

As for the government bailouts, I guess you could say he's carrying on Bush's policies, but then again he could let two or three of the big automakers die and he could let these big mortgage companies and banks die and you'd hear an uproar about why the government didn't do anything to prevent the collapse of these corporations and why hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Americans went without jobs.

What's happening right now I consider patchwork. Obama walked into a sh*t storm, and he's got to clear a path before he can start heading where he wants to.

Also, its worth mentioning that Obama did say on some occasions he agreed with some of Bush's policies and intended to fix things that don't work and make those that do work better.

 

[pamarella]

As for the government bailouts, I guess you could say he's carrying on Bush's policies, but then again he could let two or three of the big automakers die and he could let these big mortgage companies and banks die and you'd hear an uproar about why the government didn't do anything to prevent the collapse of these corporations and why hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Americans went without jobs.

That's was the Republicans and Right-Wingers want, so that they can say "TOLD YOU SO!" and blame Obama for it.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Some people seem to get confused in thinking that just because I think that Obama is really not that much different from Bush, therfore Im a republican. Couldnt be further from the truth. For me Im looking at it from the outside in, with no personal interest in either party.

 

[pamarella]

Some people seem to get confused in thinking that just because I think that Obama is really not that much different from Bush, therfore Im a republican. Couldnt be further from the truth. For me Im looking at it from the outside in, with no personal interest in either party.

As an outsider, then your perception of both Bush and Obama being the same would be correct. As the President of the United States, it is their job to put the interest of the United States first and foremost. How they go about doing so may not be the same. For those who support Obama, if his approach is being questioned or attacked, then his supporters view that as being Right-Winged and in the United States, those views tend to be associated with the Republican Party.

 

[Bob George]

Ok, so your two big points seem to be the bailouts and spending, and the war on terror.

He's not going to step down and the U.S. Government isn't going to use a hands-off approach. That was never promised and will likely never happen, so if that's what you were expecting when he mentioned "change", I think you may have been mistaken. He made it clear from the start he was going to work on a plan to scale back the number of troops in Iraq and put more responsibility on their new government, and that he was going to ramp up efforts in Afghanistan. There is no deception there, that's what he said he was going to do, and that is a change from what we were currently doing.

A real "change" would be to adopt a hand-off approach. I know Obama never specifically said he's do that. But that's what "change" would be. So unless you're doing that you're no different to anyone else who's held the position.

Also, if you recall during the campaign, Obama initially said he'd withdraw troops from Iraq. He rallied the Democratic base during the primaries by hinting at an immediate withdrawal of troops. Then he got the nomination and moderated his position saying he'll withdraw the troops within 16 months. He gets elected and then inaugurated and 16 months turn in 23 months. Now he's saying it's possible that another 6 months would have to be added on to that and that the US may still keep up to 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinately. There's no deception there?

As for the government bailouts, I guess you could say he's carrying on Bush's policies, but then again he could let two or three of the big automakers die and he could let these big mortgage companies and banks die and you'd hear an uproar about why the government didn't do anything to prevent the collapse of these corporations and why hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Americans went without jobs.

That's just instinctive behaviour. People instinctively look to the government first for the solution and if they don't provide, they haven't done their job. But if Obama was doing this the way many economics suggest and the way it's been done in the past to reduce downtime in the economy, he would just let failing companies go under.

What's happening right now I consider patchwork. Obama walked into a sh*t storm, and he's got to clear a path before he can start heading where he wants to.

That'd be alright, except he's not clearing a path at all. He's making it worse. More foreign occupation in the middle east, more national debt, more bailouts, more spending. I don't see how he's made any effort to begin to "clear a path".

Also, its worth mentioning that Obama did say on some occasions he agreed with some of Bush's policies and intended to fix things that don't work and make those that do work better.

Yes, he's agreed with Bush's policies, he said Republicans have good ideas, but then he built himself up as the anti-Bush, the opposite of everything people hated about the last 8 years. He was portrayed as being completely different to Bush, completely on the other end of every issue. He was hyped up as somone who would be different to Bush and bring change to the white house. But oh no, there's no deception there.

 

[Bob George]

Some people seem to get confused in thinking that just because I think that Obama is really not that much different from Bush, therfore Im a republican. Couldnt be further from the truth. For me Im looking at it from the outside in, with no personal interest in either party.

Agreed. Being anti-Obama doesn't mean you are on the Republican's side or are right-wing. Especially if you accuse Obama of being too much like Bush. That should give it away that you hate Bush too. People call me right-wing and I tell them they're wrong, other's call me left-wing and I tell them they're wrong. I'm neither. I'm as far right as you can go on economics and as far left as you can go on drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll. I call that the pro-freedom side.

 

[pamarella]

Also, if you recall during the campaign, Obama initially said he'd withdraw troops from Iraq. He rallied the Democratic base during the primaries by hinting at an immediate withdrawal of troops. Then he got the nomination and moderated his position saying he'll withdraw the troops within 16 months. He gets elected and then inaugurated and 16 months turn in 23 months. Now he's saying it's possible that another 6 months would have to be added on to that and that the US may still keep up to 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinately. There's no deception there?

During the campaign Obama also said that he would listen to the Army Generals and others high up within the Army to get there assessment of what is the right strategy to exit Iraq. If he didn't then that would be reckless. He told the generals what he expects as a timeline for an exit and that they must figure out based on his expectation how to meet the timeline.

That's just instinctive behaviour. People instinctively look to the government first for the solution and if they don't provide, they haven't done their job. But if Obama was doing this the way many economics suggest and the way it's been done in the past to reduce downtime in the economy, he would just let failing companies go under.

Of couse during a crisis, the people always look to the government. As the President, if he didn't do anything and soon, Obama will be held accountable. That is why the Republicans are complaining that he is " DOING TOO MUCH". They want the time to pass and for things to get worst so that they have a reason to say..... "I TOLD YOU SO!" LOL...

That'd be alright, except he's not clearing a path at all. He's making it worse. More foreign occupation in the middle east, more national debt, more bailouts, more spending. I don't see how he's made any effort to begin to "clear a path".

WE MAKE THE SACRAFICES NOW AND IT WILL PAY OFF IN THE FUTURE.... That's what Barack Obama is all about...

Agreed. Being anti-Obama doesn't mean you are on the Republican's side or are right-wing. Especially if you accuse Obama of being too much like Bush. That should give it away that you hate Bush too. People call me right-wing and I tell them they're wrong, other's call me left-wing and I tell them they're wrong. I'm neither. I'm as far right as you can go on economics and as far left as you can go on drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll. I call that the pro-freedom side.

OK! So could it be that the both of you are ANTI-AMERICA? Did you feel the same about Bill Clinton, Bush #41. Ronald Reagan?????????????

 

[AGB]

Woah, I can't believe how heated this thread has gotten, I didn't expect politics to evoke such strong reactions on here.

Anyway, my opinion is that I think its too early to judge Obama yet since he hasn't really settled into his role. I'm not for or against him because I don't really know what he's about yet but I guess I'll be able to make a better decision several months down the line when his policies and practices are in full effect. I do think a lot of expectations are being placed on him though and there's no doubt that people will be ready to shoot him down if he doesn't deliver on them. He deserves a chance, that's my take on it anyway.

 

[pamarella]

Woah, I can't believe how heated this thread has gotten, I didn't expect politics to evoke such strong reactions on here.

Well it's been said the the all the wars in the world have been fought over politics or religion.:yes:

But I'm having fun defending the best President ever elected. At least right now.:rofl::rofl::rofl: